SAWHNEY EXPORT HOUSE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who has discharged his lawyer now appears in person and sought an injunction against the encashment of bank guarantee given by the petitioner in order to avail of his quota entitlement under First Come First Service Scheme (FCFS). Rather than deal with the interim application, I am dealing with the writ petition in view of the orders of this Court dated 9/10/1996.

(2.) In the said Order of 9/10/1996, the Division Bench of this Court held as follows:

(3.) The same situation also exists in the present petition because at various stages of the pleadings, the petitioner has taken different stands for invoking the "Force Majeure clause". In certain pleas, the petitioner has taken the plea of communal riots whereas in certain occasions the plea of cargo backlog at the airport has been taken by the petitioner and it is rather surprising that the petitioner has pleaded the factory fire in its supplier's premises. Apart from the reasons given in the Order dated 9/10/1996, passed in CW.2661/95 & CM.4511/96, the Force Majeure Clause is applicable only qua the petitioner's factory. The invocation of the said clause for a fire in the premises of the petitioner's supplier cannot, therefore, give any benefit to the petitioner.